In the wake of another tragic shooting, tonight "Piers Morgan Tonight" continues its discussion on gun control and gun violence in the aftermath of the Clackamas Town Center shooting in Portland, Oregon. On Tuesday evening, the gunman Jacob Tyler Roberts, entered the shopping mall, wearing a ski mask and carrying a stolen AR-15 assault rifle. He reportedly fired 20 shots inside the mall, leaving two people dead and one critically injured before turning the gun on himself.

Piers Morgan will talk to witnesses Brance Wilson, Jocelyn Lay and Antonio Charro for their account and perspective on the incident. Also on the program, Carol Roth, Abby Huntsman and Charles Blow to discuss gun control and much more.

soundoff(91 Responses)

PM was a total jerk Weds nite, talking over people, spouting ridiculous statistics. He says the AF15 Semi could shoot hundreds of shots per minute. Only the fully automatic could do so. He has no idea what he is talking about. For the way he acted, the nonsense he was spouting and his total lack of courtesy he should be taken off the air. He is a disgrace to journalism, if that is what you could possibly call what he was doing.

Totally right Larry. These people have no idea what they are talking about. The woman saying that banning or prohibiting will not stop criminals is (no pun intended) dead-on target. She looks lovely as well and i appreciate her calmness in dealing with inflammatory morons.

This is a horrible trajedy commited by a deeply disturbed individual, but people are not murdered by guns, they are murdered by people. Secondly the amount of people that responsibly exercise there right to own weapons make the single largest "homeland" security force in the world, and this is possibly one of the reasons this nation has never been invaded by a foreign force.

One example; if the batman in aurora, co had only a handgun, far fewer would have died. If he had no gun, maybe one or two could've died on his hatred alone. But most likely, a coward like him would never have the courage to pull anything like that off.

I'm sorry i disagree with you here, I also own semi-auto handguns and can fire them as fast and reload as fast as with my AR. People keep talking about this as issue with assault rifles, the standard AR 15 is a .223 cal there are many traditional style semi auto rifles not considered assault style that are larger caliber with similar magazine capacities that could be far more lethal. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."
-Thomas Jefferson

You don't have to handle everything on a federal level, that is why individual states are able to enact even stricter laws if that state deems fit. If you are all so afraid of firearms then why not move to one of the "Safer states" that has extremely strict gun laws? Here are a few examples of your "Safer" cities and states:

1. chicago, IL strictest gun laws in the USA. Also has the highest violent crime rate in the country. Sound good?

2. How about california? as a whole, has the strictest overall state gun laws. also, in a recent list of 67 of the most dangerous cities over 250,000 it has 14 cities on the list, more than any other state. that seem like where you want to move?

3. Camden, NJ Ranks 72 out of 100 on the Brady Campaigns "Strongest Gun laws" states, the highest on the east coast. Never heard of anything bad happening in Camden have you?

These are real statistics, feel free to verify them. I own several AR 15 rifles, one for each member of my family. I am a proud citizen of this great country, and it is my RIGHT to own firearms regardless of style or magazine capacity. If you don't like that then move to where you feel the safest.

What do you say to the gun lobby that would advocate that if everyone was armed they could have shot the shooter? You could say that if everyone were armed and shooting at the, or a shooter wouldn't everyone be shooting at each other because they are all shooting?

Scott, I agree with you. The same thing can be said about highjacking an airplane. Flight 69 established what would happen if another terrorist would try to take over a plane. Homeland security is merely an excuse to establish yet another branch of government and is an example of attempting to regulate a free society. The sad truth is that this young man had little regard for the consequences to his actions, as demonstrated by the theft of the weapon and his ultimate suicide well before any form of confrontation by police or others. Prevention of insanity is impossible, as witnessed by PM's position on gun control.

Piers Morgan your an IDIOT... the reason I need an AR-15 is because of people like you. James Holmes by the way legally purchased his guns and passed the background check process. I am protecting myself from my government taking advantage of me and trying to turn us back into your mother England!!

You Sir need to go back to England where people of your beliefs have no guns-–why do you think you insist on coming over here and preach your brand on crap where you are not wanted or needed. You do this to create controversy and stir unrest for your own benefit and it is disgusting to listen to you.

I agree that this is another terrible tragedy, but I have been around guns all my life. and have never seen or heard of a gun killing anyone. Would they try to outlaw hammers if someone ran thru a mall striking people on the head and killing them. P.M. needs to home, and quit trying to instill fear in the american people

Piers, why are you not as angry and disgusted with how many people are killed every year in the United States by automobiles?? Those deaths are triple the total number for your 10 year numbers for all firearms deaths for just each year!!!!

Pearce, it would be nice if you would just once shut up and let your guests talk. Otherwise why bother having guests at all, just blab to yourself for the whole hour. I know you believe you are the expert on everything but you might just learn something if you would listen to what other people have to say. After a year we all know your opinions on everything , it would be nice just once to hear what your guests have to say. God I miss Larry King.

Raesay,
Obviously you don't watch the show or you could at least spell Piers name right. You can see some of the ignorance from the comments that people aren't listening. Piers does let his guests speak when they are talking about relevant facts, not just jibberish! No one is saying you can't bear arms. Get a life! If you want Larry King, turn the channel...DAH!!

I'm actually undecided on this issue. For reasons:
1. If we disarm everyone, how do we defend our nation against other nations when that is our last ditch protection?
2. But gun crimes exist, we could disarm everyone and just re-arm them if the scenario in #1 happens..
3. But if we did #2, that would eliminate our protections from an overly-agressive and oppressive leadership structure, getting us back to #1...

AFAIK – I don't know what to do except since we are collecting information on everyone, be better able to prevent these events from happening.. not through categorization of people, but through realistic warning signs – much like we can prevent certain diseases or illness given an accurate measure of risk and peaceful response? I don't know...

The only good gun control and background checks do is to keep guns out of the hands of those who are willing to obey the law. If you check the stats most areas with strict gun control have higher violent crime rates than areas without. Also, to answer Mr. Morgans question why do I need my AR 15?, Because I hunt with it, and have the right to protect myself, and my family in the event I were to ever need to ffrom any enemy foreign or domestic!

Statistically, more people will be murdered with guns in the U.S. during the next 35 hours, than will be murdered in the U.K. in the next 12 months. Mr. Gottlieb might want to rethink his use of statistics.

Gratifying to hear discussion about the reality of guns in America. From someone who has lived with the consequences of illicit weaponry, thank you, Piers Morgan for bringing the sad reality to light. Too many 2d Amendment types arguing about principals who havent lived the realities. Watch your child in a hospital having a leg amputated and see how meaningful those principals are in the face of that kind of nightmare. Then deal with a $600,000 hospital bill. Wheres my rights?

Why should a rich lawyer or politician who is not a trained race car driver be able to purchase a porsche, go to a business luncheon, get intoxicated, speed down a street in a small town, crash through a school yard and mow down a class of children? why would anyone aside from a race car driver need one of these?

Well Ron, maybe you enjoy being helpless and dependent on a corrupted system where laws only apply to billionaires, and self appointed rulers, say in places like the un-employed kingdom, or that other outpost of the Queen's down under where the crime rate soared by 350% when the rulers their stole the guns of the subjects. What we need isn't a discussion of the plain wording of the Second Amendment, but rather one about the right of the States to sucede from the Federal Government. Any way Ron, since you obviously don't live here, I'd appreciate it if you took Mr. Morgan back home to his Queen.

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.'

Pierce, I understand you anger and argument. Although I am in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the way I see it is, "If cops aren't allowed to carry automatic riffles in the streets, why should a civilian be allow too." Thanks!

They call them criminals because they DO NOT obey ANY laws. In addition, some folks that are quick to ban firearms are the same folks who feel sorry for murderers by opposing the death penaly and who are pro abortion. I'm an ex cop. The violent criminals DO NOT give a damn about you or I.

If PM wants a soap box, then he should have brought one...and placed it somewhere besides this show. His job is to moderate a very important discussion. It's obvious that he doesn't want to remotely hear any opinion that conflicts with his own, at least on the gun topic.. Shut up and quit interrupting your guests. "it's my show" is a really" amateur response.

There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin .
That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania
Michigan 's 700,000 hunters,Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia.
Hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.
And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states.
It's millions m
ore.
Hunting...it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of National Security.
That's why all enemies,foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.
Food for thought,when next we consider gun control.
For the sake of our freedom,don't ever allow gun control
or confiscation of guns. The RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
IT IS A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY

It is really outrageous why people even own such weapons. I do understand that we all have to protect our homes and families. But unless you go hunting in any way there is no reason why these guns should be allowed on the streets. Someone who owns such a guns has the intention of killing....point blank

Of course there's not one word about the 60 million citizens murdered by their own governments over the last century.
That NP, was a primary consideration by the people who devised the Bill of Rights....might want to rethink your assumptions.

Re: gun control
In all the arguments pro and con, I have not seen or heard any mention of "well regulated militia". This is what the founding fathers meant the second amendment for. Yes we should have a right to all sorts of war weapons but only as part of a well regulated militia.

You obviously dont understand the meaning of a "Well regulated militia"

Look up the congressional definition of "Militia" you and I ARE the militia.
"Regulated" didnt mean the same thing at the tie of the founding we take it to mean today.
Back then it was more of a mechanical term and had more to do with making sure everyone was armed enough and well practiced in the use of those arms. Regulated back then was to make regular.

Lets take a look at the amendment. This time as the founders intended it to be understood. We know this by their writings which I can easily go on for days quoting but will refrain from doing so at this point

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

As I mentioned. You and I ARE the militia to be well regulated. we will be armed enough and well practiced in the use of those arms. Why? because that is necessary to the security of a free State.
Why?
Because. When is a free state not free?. A free state is no longer free when its own government seeks to remove those freedoms and liberties such as the British did prior to our independence. It is important to remember the colonists were fighting against what was at the time their own government. A government that also tried to disarm them as an unarmed populace is no threat to the government.

And that is the entire reason for the next part.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"
You see the founders were very leery of both standing armies and of governments themselves having all the power. So they included the next part giving ultimate authority on the matter, not to the military. Not the police but the people themselves. And expressly forbid the government to infringe on the peoples right to insure that would be very much less likely to happen.

The rights of the "people" And that phrase. "the people is a very important distinction. As when the founders intended to mean the military that is what they said. And when they meant the "people" (you and I) that is also what they said. It doesnt say the right of the people to be in the military and bear arms. But the right of "the people to keep and bear arms" (The militia is not the military)

That right of the people is intentionally intended to be the final check in the long list of checks and balances to prevent a tyrannical government.

The 2nd Amendment was enacted in 1776, when there was no organized Police Force in most places, the West was still wild and there was no 911. In this day and age it is ludicrous for anyone to require a firearm, besides hunters and farmers. Ther is absolutely no need for handguns and semi- automatic weapons of any type. For the NRA and all the 2nd Amendment supporters, you only need to look at the statistics in most developed countries, Canada, Britain, Australia and all the countries in Western Europe. The murder rate and accidents by guns in America compared to the rest of those countries, is not double, triple or even 10 times. It is more than 50 times!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I rest my case.

You know, you're right. The second amendment was written so long ago... how could the forefathers possibly have planned for the capabilities of firearms today?

Hey! The first amendment was written at the same time! I'm sure they didn't foresee inventions such as television, phones, radio, or the internet. We should probably ban those too. After all, we even have historical reference. One man's words transmitted through the radio were given hearts, minds, and fists by horrible people, which eventually led to the disarming of a country and the deaths of 20 million people, including 6 million Jewish people and 12 million Russians.

But that's just an isolated incident right? Surely hateful speech can't be spread across these modes of communication, spurring violence from whatever group may identify with it, regardless of accessibility of firearms, right?

yea right, no government would ever think about killing its people in this day and time. You must not be paying attention as to what is going on in other countries, like Egypt and Syria. I don't trust any government that impose legislations against the will of the people, when the majority is against it. Our own government has done that. So just how far would they take it if we were all unarmed and only had rocks to throw? Its a chance I'm not willing to take.

Piers, I like the way you let the guy from the Brady foundation talk . But keep interrupting the Pro Gun speaker. If you want to have an open discussion about guns. you need to let both sides do the discussing and not just the side you support.

Why an AR-15 or similar type weapon? If your asking that you are clueless as to what the second amendment is really about and supposed to be about. And its not simply protection against each other. Or for hunting.

For the record. The gun crime rate with assault weapons during the "ban" resulting in zero difference in gun crime or crimes committed with an assault weapon. So that argument is rather moot at best.
Also for the record. The gun used by Jacob Tyler Roberts. Wasn't used by a legal gun owner. He stole it.

And yes YOUR part in the conversation is anti guns. It must be as its the only side you let speak completely unfettered.
You seem to be pretty bright and most of the time I really enjoy your show for its fairness to all points of view. Until tonight where that went straight out the window.

BTW. inasmuch as you are obviously a historical illiterate. the founders wanted us to be able to have "military grade" weapons. Because when only the police and military have them. ONLY the military and police can use them. The primary reason for the second. Is so you may defend yourself against an unruly government. This came about because of what your homeland did.

The founders would not be appalled at what is going on.

Jefferson (A liberal in his time ) himself wrote
" "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

""And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson

I agree with Piers Morgan about gun control. There is no need for people, other than law enforcement or military, to own automatic assault weapons. And, gun shows should be banned if they allow anyone to buy any type of gun without having background checks. The Second Amendment Foundation jerk (feel free to add an adjective before jerk) is an idiot. We are thankful we live in Canada and are not gun obsessed.

Mr. Morgan: What you do not know is the Federal Government will issue a permit for an individual to own a machine gun if you can pass the background check and you have the fee. The government cannot control guns getting in the hands of irresponsible people or criminals. They cannot get drugs off the streets and they will NEVER GET GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS. All an individual can do is arm himself in order to protect himself and his family, otherwise we will be like the citizens of Mexico at the mercy of the criminals. A friend of mine explained his brother in Mexico said the Mexican people live in fear because they CANNOT PROTECT THEMSELVES BECAUSE OWNING A GUN IS AGAINST THE LAW.

Piers, You are very good at promoting a perspective that is uniquely blind to the truth. Gun control is a futile effort by men to control that which is uncontrollable. Guns have been in existance for hundreds of years, in one form or another. To believe that controlling guns will prevent abuse by guns is expecting to put the genie back in the bottle. Gun control did not prevent the Norway massacre, nor prevent any senseless act from occurring. Tragedy is around us daily, airplanes, cars, cruise ships, ect cause death as well. Regulation is a well intended but misled effort to control something which is uncontrollable. Fact is, the Clackamas deaths were minimal to what could have happened had the shooter been more prepared such as the Norway, Oslo shooter who set off a car bomb, then shot 67 people. To use a Piers line of logic, we should restrict people from the use of a car in fear that the use of that car might be in the form of an Oslo attack, as well as ban semi-automatic weapons. We should never forget that those who break the law don't really care if Piers and his co-horts have outlawed something. "If you outlaw guns...only outlaws will have guns." If someone is that bent on self destructive behavior, they will merely shift to the weapon of the day...a butterknife can be just as deadly in the wrong hands. While condoning malicious behavior is the furthest from anyone's idea of how to address this kind of tragedy, the reality is that if there were only one person in that mall that had even a single shot pistol, they could have possibly had an impact on the day's events. Or...a person in the food prep area that had access to that butterknife and the opportune moment? But that is to say that the anit-butterknife lobby hasn't outlawed them...yet.

Piers Morgan needs to go back to his home land where there is no guns. If you don't like it here go back to where you come from. He don't no what to hell he is talking about. CNN needs to run his ass off. he is using his show to push gun control.

Utopio is think that you can prevent beserk shooting by owning weapons. The opposite is more likely. Everyone thinks of themselve as the good guy, this is utupic.

This paranoid urge to own a weapon in America has become a vicious circle. There are so many weapons in circulation
that some people think there is no way back. the pandora's box of free weapon ownership.

Besides do you know that most weapons in Mexico came from the US... even legally bought by mexicans in the US. The US weapon law is needlessly destabilizing its neighbouring country.

Gun ownership was certainly very high in the 1700's and 1800's quite common when I was a kid. When I was growing up, we used to have lots of guns in the house. Almost all of my friends family's had guns and we drove around as kids sporting gun racks in the back window of the pickup. I spent a lot of time hunting and little time watching TV as most kids did back in the 60's. There was very little gun violence then and gun violence was not glamorized on TV. According to the CNN website: "The number of households owning guns has declined from almost 50% in 1973 to just over 32% in 2010, according to a 2011 study produced by The University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center." Which brings me to my question. What has happened that has led to an increase in gun violence? Guns? How so then if the numbers of people owning guns has declined? I would put forth an opinion that our culture has changed, a glamorization of gun violence. Perhaps we should be talking about Hollywood control or media control instead of gun control.

I don't mind Pierce Morgan spouting off about gun control, however to be so rude as to invite a guest and not let him speak "then telling him it's his show" is disgusting. Pierce acts as though he is the guest and not the interviewer. What has happened to CNN? Your programming and format has changed so much from the CNN I knew. I understand a new change in CNN's programming may return to the format I once knew.

The interview tonight (if anyone could call it that) showed what Mr. Morgan sorely lacks in the way of journalistic fairness and integrity... Anyone interviewed who supported his inaccurate point of view on banning what he repeatedly and incorrectly called "assault weapons" was allowed to pontificate and bloviate on ad nauseum..

On the other hand, when Alan Gottlieb of the 2nd Amendment Foundation spoke he was immediately and continuously interrrupted. Mr. Gottleib was not even allowed to answer the questions that were posed to him by Morgan. Mr. Morgan did the same thing in the follow up piece with an unbalanced panel made up of two emotional gun control advocates Morgan as " gun control moderator/host" and a young lady from HuffPost ( I think) who seemed to have some pertinant facts in line that Morgan diodn't want anyone to hear. She too was browbeaten by the "plucky Brit" (if that's what he is) from his bully pulpit and who is now over here to tell Americans what we do and do not need in the way of firearms and amendments.

Guns of course are virtually banned in the U.K., where it is nearly illegal to defend yourself from the roving bands of thugs and hooligans many carrying guns and knives that British citizens cannot lawfully own.

If Mr. Morgan would shut his Kidney Pie Hole for a wee bit, loosen up his knickers and get the facts he might see the light.. Criminals and lunatics are committing these crimes almost to the person.

Mass shootings make up less than 5% of US gun deaths. Nearly half of the rest are suicides. Children spending the night at a home with a swimming pool are more likely to die than in a home where there are guns.

There's more: Chicago where it is virtually impossible to get a gun because of strict gun laws is the murder capital, of the USA surpassing DC (where it is also nearly impossible to legally own a gun) in June of 2012. Mr. Morgan is obviously emotionally overwrought about this issue like many but is blaming guns, not people and the sad mental, moral and ethical condition of so many in this country...

But why should the law abiding be outgunned by criminal dirtbags,dope gangsters, fame seeking psycho thugs and low lifes to appease some fantasy that the anti-gun lobby entertains. Do they really believe that making the legal ownership of guns go away will make us all all live in a Nirvanic Paradise..

Like the young lady so correctly said as Mr. Morgan was rudely talking over her response. Guns will never be "in control" by disarming the law abiding. Drugs, criminals, crime are all illegal right? Why are they still here then???

Also remember Concorde and Lexington, my good man and why we sent your lot packing back to the coal smoke and fog of the (former) British Empire. It was called the Kentucky Assault Rilfe back then, invented, raised and fired by citizens first, not soldiers...

So Pierce should get some firearms training and get over your inordinant fear of things you don't understand or start a campaign to ban cars, swimming pools and prescription drugs.. They kill more people children (if it sounds better for expanding your viewer numbers) by far, than guns do. And again It's the criminals and loonies Pierce,not the guns. Get it ????

Count the school shooting incidents over the last 10 years in Europe (15 incidents on a population of 739,165,030 people) and compare that to the number of incidents of that kind in the US (70 incidents on a population of 314,918,000) I calculate 11 times more incidents in the Us than in Europe.
source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting

but there is also clear correlation between civilian firearms ownership and the number of firearms incidents (3.0 versus 3.3_).
European countries.

Sometimes the math just doesn't add up. Read up a bit from my previous post. If the numbers of households owning guns since the 70's is going down, yet gun violence is on the rise, then the problem isn't guns, the problem is cultural.

I agree with your findings. There is a greater chance of getting killed in the US than European countries. That is part of the risk living in a free society.

You may not agree with my logic, but the US is relatively young compared to the European countries and the US was never under the rule of a dictator or king. The US from the beginning was a free democratic republic that needed armed militia to protect itself from foreign invasion and also the forefathers believed to keep its own government in check. The years of the musket are long gone and I believe the discussion should not be around the Second Amendment but what is best for society.

It is strange that we never hear of a crazy person going into a police station and killing people. The reason is that they probably can figure there will be a few folks hanging around with guns. This ridiculous law needs to be reversed on banning guns in public places. It was a feel good law passed by lazy politicians. Statistics show that gun carrying states have fewer crimes than state that do not allow guns to be carried. If Piers' believe that his silly rants are going to prevent people living in a free society from being killed is living in a fantasy world.

Piers is wrong to refer to this rifles as assault rifles. It is a semi-automatic rifle. Assault rifles are illegal for citizens to own. Only the military can own them.

His belief that 12,000 people are killed by guns each year in American is true but car crashes involving alcohol kills 10,000 people each year but we tolerate that statistic. The difference is that a person walking into a mall or a movie theater and killing 10 people is more news worthy than a car crash on a country road killing tow people. Similar to a plane crash, more deaths per incident, more news coverage. Per year, the number of deaths are about the same.

Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration FARS data, 2012.

There is no doubt that hand guns are made to kill people if that is the intent of the gun owner. The discussion should not be centered around the Second Amendment but what is best for a society in the 21st century to legislate guns without violating the person's right to own a gun.

Please Mr. Morgan, I respect your right and passion to have an opinon on gun ownership. I only ask that you respect other's right to have an opinion and hear them out on your show. your overtalking your guests and even insulting them is offensive to me.

Piers is right about the urgent need to repeal the 2nd amendment. People should not have a "right" to own a gun.
The individuals supporting the unregulated sale of guns in America are just ignorant and Piers should talk over them because their opinions do not deserve respect in a civilized society. It is Pier's show and he can do what he wants.

Culture is one of the variables of course. For instance violence glorification is a lesser taboo in American movies than lets say nudity.

But this trend you are mentioning might also has something to do with automatic weapons. Loading systems became more and more efficient. You can do more damage with a MG then with a colt a hunting rifle.

And during 1700's to 1850's most of weapons were muzzle loaded weapons like flint-muskets and flint-pistols. Very ineffective tools to massacre people especially if you are acting alone.

True, muzzle loaded weapons would be very inefficient weapons for massacres and perhaps my point taking it back to the 1700's blurs the point. My point is that gun ownership is going down as a percentage of the population, yet gun violence is going up. More specific recently are massacres in public places. While it's true that some of the weapons made today increases this efficiency, this isn't something that was common in the era of the colt revolver, or the early days of the 45mm 15 shot automatic pistol. Or even in the mid 70's with the Mini 14, which came with a 30 shot clip. Most of this recent type of violence has been since the late 90's. I stick to my point, that it's cultural changes that have lead to a surge in this recent behavior.

I also find it interesting that not only has glamorization of gun violence in movies, TV etc changed, but also there has been a dramatic number of young people who are constantly engaged in first person shooter games. Coincidentally the first person shooter games really evolved around the early to mid 1990's and have become massively popularized in games like Grand Theft Auto, Halo and Call of Duty. What happens to succeptible people who sit for hours per day, practicing how to kill. What effects does this have and what propensity does it have to glamorize the assault weapon?

If we put forth laws and ban guns, people would still beable tp buy them like the do with drugs. Both would be iligal but still available. This would make it more danagerous because they are not regisered and unable to trace. GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. STOP BLAMING THE GUN FOR THE ASSAULT AND BLAM THE PERSON WHO PULLED THE TRIGER!!!!!! people who do carry guns responsibly are not to be feard but respected. Them carrying gun put Fear in the people with gun with malicious intentions. We who carry keep you safe. Stop giving the govnment control. they will take rights left and right till we have none.

Bob Dylan got it right back in 1963, protesting the military industrial complex in his epic song
Masters of War, when he sang:

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly.

The miltary industrial complex that Dylan so artfully protested against and the today's gun manufacturers
are one in the same. Both profit from selling fear as they merchandize death. The gun manufacturers
rely on the 2nd Amemdment to profit off the tragic deaths of so many Americans. It is time to repeal the
2nd Amendment. The most recent American shooting occurred in a shopping mall in Portland, Oregon and
involved a semi-automatic assault rifle as did the shootings in the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado;
Congresswoman Gabriel Gifford's shooting in Tuscon, Arizona; Virginia Tech massacre; and the Columbine
High School massacre; however, recently in Kansas City, former NFL player Jovan Belcher tragically murdered
his girlfriend and then committed suicide using a handgun. why should America allow such easy access to
semi-automatic rifles and handguns so that gun manufactures can make a profit off death and cite the 2nd
Amendment as justification to perpetuate this slaughter? The 2nd Amendment was was adopted on December
15, 1791. The founding fathers never contemplated an america were weapons of mass desrtuction andf handguns
ciould be produced on a massive scale and so easily obtained by citizens What was appropriate for the America in
1791 is no longer appropriate, sustainable or viable in America in 2012. So, let's listen to and understand the meaning
behind Dylan's Masters of War and stop the bloodshed in America and repeal the 2nd Amendment

What is wrong with americans (I'm Canadian) every one is asking why is this happening? what can we do? man. it's in front of you. If you sell deadly assault weapons to anyone that wants them this will keep going on and on and on. Are you people blind? last night after it was pointed out clearly to your guest ( americans murdered 11,000 brits (where guns are not allowed) 43 and he still didn't see this fact in front of him). Those weapons are meant for war, to kill as many bodies as possible you couldn't even use them hunting unless you were hunting a herd of buffalo's why do you allow the sale of these weapons, it's pure insanity and that's how the entire world views this issue. unless those laws are changed every american is to blame for these nightmares.

We have much more issues than just removing the guns. This is (maybe) a bandaid but not a solution.. Violent people will find a way to be violent and hurtful. We have to get back to actually noticing each other, paying attention to our neighbors and the people in our community. We have to start embracing each othe, and providing support when it is needed, rather than ignoring it. Right now the whole country needs to stop arguing (or typing) about gun control and refocus their energy on something positive and beging shifting our culture of innoring people and then wondering why the "loners" go nuts. Maybe when they were recognized as loners, someone should have taken it upon them self to build a relationship.

Piers is disgraceful!!! He should be terminated for acting that way with guests. Horrible representation of CNN. No way to have logical gun law discussion with him acting like an idiot. There is emotion, and there is agenda. The difference is clear.

Piers needs to realize he is working against gun control, acting like that is making people not want more strict gun control. Changing the Bill of Rights is not something that needs to be done because a loud mouth Enlishman on tv thinks its a good idea. The only way to have stricter gun control is to meet in the middle. If you go full bore like this idiot is it will not make it through Congress. There are over 250 million guns in America, this Englishman is wanting to remove them. Number 1 it's not possible, and number 2 it would be Civil War. The power of government comes from the people. The vast majority of America want the Right to Bear Arms. CNN you need to reign Piers in or terminate him. But with rhetoric and actions like his it is flaming the emotions of the situation.

We applaud Piers Morgan's focus on gun control. We respect people's right to like guns. We also respect our right and those of our children to live without fear of being shot at the movies, in school, and on street corners and in shopping malls. We must support and encourage all efforts to remove dangerous weapons from our streets and from the hands of dangerous people.

Wish Piers would ask the gentleman in favor of automatic weapons A: how can someone with a small gun possibly protect oneself from such a large rifle with rounds & rounds of shots going off continuallly & B: where a teacher would safely store a gun inside a classroom that would be child proof–locked gun cases can be opened; glass can be broken. Thanks Piers for remaining logical & telling it like it is.

"Georgia mom home alone with kids shoots ex-con intruder" go read that story or would have rather have seen that family murdered in the name of gun control. Piers, go back home. I does make me sad that I fought to protect this countries freedoms so that morons like you can run your mouth. But freedom is freedom.

Post a comment

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.